When I wrote before about writing to Intel, I had considered only part of the issue. So I feel obligated to fill in the part of the picture that was missing.
The messages you send to Intel's customer service in favor of free BIOS support are not read or answered by someone who has the authority to change Intel's policy. That's the part I considered before.
The part I overlooked is that these messages are part of a campaign. Sending many letters to Intel has the effect of showing Intel that the public is concerned about the issue. So even if the people who read these messages only send back a canned response, they tell people higher up that the public is concerned about the issue. More letters mean more pressure.
So it is useful to send the messages.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Richard M Stallman wrote:
When I wrote before about writing to Intel, I had considered only part of the issue. So I feel obligated to fill in the part of the picture that was missing.
The messages you send to Intel's customer service in favor of free BIOS support are not read or answered by someone who has the authority to change Intel's policy. That's the part I considered before.
The part I overlooked is that these messages are part of a campaign. Sending many letters to Intel has the effect of showing Intel that the public is concerned about the issue. So even if the people who read these messages only send back a canned response, they tell people higher up that the public is concerned about the issue. More letters mean more pressure.
So it is useful to send the messages.
Maybe we should bypass the lower levels and write directly to some ceo.
- -- arc -- www.chi3.org I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom! http://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf?referrer=5796
NO EMAIL from gmail accounts, >1Mb, html, ms-office files
Richard M Stallman wrote:
When I wrote before about writing to Intel, I had considered only part of the issue. So I feel obligated to fill in the part of the picture that was missing.
The messages you send to Intel's customer service in favor of free BIOS support are not read or answered by someone who has the authority to change Intel's policy. That's the part I considered before.
The part I overlooked is that these messages are part of a campaign. Sending many letters to Intel has the effect of showing Intel that the public is concerned about the issue. So even if the people who read these messages only send back a canned response, they tell people higher up that the public is concerned about the issue. More letters mean more pressure.
So it is useful to send the messages.
Arc wrote:
Maybe we should bypass the lower levels and write directly to some ceo.
The unwritten assumption here is the CEO is the one person who ultimately decides whether Free Software developers of coreboot and other GPL licensed Free BIOS/Firmware get the technical chipset information they need. This may be true, but the CEO listens to both (primarily) advisors below him and (to a lesser degree) the Board of Directors above him.
We need Intel insiders who can tell us who these advisors are and which approach would be more successful in convincing them that releasing chipset information to core Free Software BIOS/Firmware developers would have a significant, net positive effect for Intel. The Board of Directors of a public company should be listed with the information the company must file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It also happens to be on Intel's website http://www.intel.com/pressroom/bod.htm.
We need to accept the fact that Intel may be willing to release chipset information to only a few core developers via an NDA and may want to review source code developed to ensure that not too much information is publicly released (for example in the comments). Thus, the code may have to be developed by a small number of developers, who can communicate to each other, but may not publicly release their code until approved by Intel.
What should the message be? All your competitors are providing their chipset information and they are thus able to provide free coreboot firmware that boots in a few seconds as opposed to about 30 seconds. It must clearly and accurately show the advantages, both technical and business, of coreboot over any proprietary BIOS. It should list both embedded low power and as well as server and PC processor projects that could each produce volumes in the millions that without coreboot, Intel would lose to its competitors. Furthermore, coreboot does not have to be better than any proprietary BIOS in every way, such as in UEFI compatibility, since in many application/markets, UEFI is not needed. Any clear or hidden threat (other than realistic loss of market share by not supporting coreboot) should not be included in the message. Anything significant that is win/win for both parties should be included in the message.
How should the message be sent? Probably type-written letter, but a legibly hand-written letter may have more impact. It should definitely be sent via the local postal service of the country of origin. The letter should be tailored to the unique market situation in the country of origin as well.
Who should sent messages? Anyone who realistically has a good chance of making a positive impact.
Comments are requested. No doubt I'm missing many good points. Someone else might present the topic more concisely and might develop a better plan of action.
Sincerely,
Ken Fuchs
-
arc -
Ken.Fuchs＠bench.com -
Richard M Stallman